Conquer Club

Phatscotty wrote:what Marxism hinges on was not the topic of discussion, but nice try. Your comment is a side step

It's kind of important to know what you mean by "Marxist" in a thread asking people if someone is a Marxist, no?

Another YouTube video shows evidence that Obama is actually a Demon summoned in a black magic ceremony because of an expression on his face when the name "Jesus" is yelled at him by a heckler. Each side has a large number of passionate believers and it's important we democratically determine which of these two choices is correct. Scott can represent the Obama is a Marxist camp and I'll represent the Obama is a Demon camp as their proxy. We can each present the evidence and the gang can determine which is correct is a rational, intellectual manner. Someone start a poll.

WATCH THE TRANSFORMATION IN OBAMA'S FACE AS HE IS CONFRONTED WITH THE 'HOLY NAME OF JESUS'. SCRIPTURE SAYS DEMONS BELIEVE AND TREMBLE... NOTICE HOW HE ROBOTICALLY REPEATS THE PHRASE... BUT THE 'SMIRK' ON HIS FACE REVEALS THE DEMONIC SPIRIT WITHIN HIM, LOOKING OUT OF THOSE BLACK, EVIL EYES! GOD IS NOT THE AUTHOR OF CONFUSION - SATAN IS.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9Qy5rAd ... ults_video

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:what Marxism hinges on was not the topic of discussion, but nice try. Your comment is a side step

It's kind of important to know what you mean by "Marxist" in a thread asking people if someone is a Marxist, no?

Idk, that wasn't my point, it what someone elses, dumbass

Is redistribution of the wealth a key tenet of Marxism? Or isn't it?

Of course it is, and there is Obama, ALL about redistributing the wealth.

Phatscotty wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:what Marxism hinges on was not the topic of discussion, but nice try. Your comment is a side step

It's kind of important to know what you mean by "Marxist" in a thread asking people if someone is a Marxist, no?

Idk, that wasn't my point, it what someone elses, dumbass

Nope- that was what you said. Try once more, or go for the dodge again.

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:what Marxism hinges on was not the topic of discussion, but nice try. Your comment is a side step

It's kind of important to know what you mean by "Marxist" in a thread asking people if someone is a Marxist, no?

Who needs definitions? Don't define it and you wont have to change your definition when your argument doesn't hit the way you want.

Test Run w/out Definition: Obama is a Marxist because he wishes his name was Mark or some variant like Sandy or something.

If I never define the word I can always be right, right?

Phatscotty wrote:Is redistribution of the wealth a key tenet of Marxism? Or isn't it?

Of course it is, and there is Obama, ALL about redistributing the wealth. But a smart person would never waste the time trying to make the connection, while it seems they will spend an extreme amount of time arguing otherwise

How about Class warfare? Nahhhhhhhhhhhhh, NOT OBAMA!!!!

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:what Marxism hinges on was not the topic of discussion, but nice try. Your comment is a side step

It's kind of important to know what you mean by "Marxist" in a thread asking people if someone is a Marxist, no?

Idk, that wasn't my point, it what someone elses, dumbass

Nope- that was what you said. Try once more, or go for the dodge again.

For your education (I'm writing it off!)

Marxism is based on a materialist understanding of societal development, taking at its starting point the necessary economic activities required by human society to provide for its material needs. The form of economic organization, or mode of production, is understood to be the basis from which the majority of other social phenomena — including social relations, political and legal systems, morality and ideology — arise (or at the least by which they are greatly influenced). These social relations form the superstructure, for which the economic system forms the base. As the forces of production (most notably technology) improve, existing forms of social organization become inefficient and stifle further progress. These inefficiencies manifest themselves as social contradictions in the form of class struggle.

I read this, and I'm thinkin to myself "that's Obama....Obama....Obama again....yup...OBama....."

Phatscotty wrote:Is redistribution of the wealth a key tenet of Marxism? Or isn't it?

No.

Redistribution of wealth is a key tenet of Keynesianism.

Nationalization of wealth is a key tenet of Marxism-Leninism.

In redistribution, property flows from A Party to B Party, the State acting as a transfer point on the journey. In nationalization, the State is the terminus of the journey.

Phatscotty wrote:I read this, and I'm thinkin to myself "that's Obama....Obama....Obama again....yup...OBama....."

Capitalism also represents a "materialist understanding of societal development." Both capitalism and communism are materialist approaches to the social condition. Distributism and related ideologies are anti-materialist understandings of social development.

saxitoxin wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Is redistribution of the wealth a key tenet of Marxism? Or isn't it?

No.

Redistribution of wealth is a key tenet of Keynesianism.

Nationalization of wealth is a key tenet of Marxism-Leninism.

In redistribution, property flows from A Party to B Party, the State acting as a transfer point on the journey. In nationalization, the State is the terminus of the journey.

Phatscotty wrote:I read this, and I'm thinkin to myself "that's Obama....Obama....Obama again....yup...OBama....."

Capitalism also represents a "materialist understanding of societal development." Both capitalism and communism are materialist approaches to the social condition. Distributism and related ideologies are anti-materialist understandings of social development.

To clarify:
In Marxism, the government takes the money of citizens and keeps it.
In Keynesianism, the government takes the money of citizens and blankets it over other citizens.

Did I get it right?

kentington wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Is redistribution of the wealth a key tenet of Marxism? Or isn't it?

No.

Redistribution of wealth is a key tenet of Keynesianism.

Nationalization of wealth is a key tenet of Marxism-Leninism.

In redistribution, property flows from A Party to B Party, the State acting as a transfer point on the journey. In nationalization, the State is the terminus of the journey.

Phatscotty wrote:I read this, and I'm thinkin to myself "that's Obama....Obama....Obama again....yup...OBama....."

Capitalism also represents a "materialist understanding of societal development." Both capitalism and communism are materialist approaches to the social condition. Distributism and related ideologies are anti-materialist understandings of social development.

To clarify:
In Marxism, the government takes the money of citizens and keeps it.
In Keynesianism, the government takes the money of citizens and blankets it over other citizens.

Did I get it right?

Maybe BBS will correct me if I am oversimplifying too much for emphasis, but Keynesianism might see redistribution as a means to an end. Wealth is like calcium in your plumbing. It periodically accumulates in large deposits and needs to be flushed out occasionally so the lower classes can keep purchasing and the cycle of industrial production-consumption doesn't stagnate. One might see it as based in pragmatism versus egalitarianism, though politicians might occasionally apply dressage to make it look like a compassionate system (i.e. "giving everyone their fair share", "community safety net").

The redistribution - or, more correctly, abolition - of property in Marxism is an end in itself and the economic ideology can only be understood in the frame of the parallel sociological belief in a wide-ranging, global conspiracy engineered by the "immortal nobility" who have artificially created nation-states to beguile and fool the working class into fighting each other so they won't turn their attention on the government.

PS - The bet is this:

President Obama will not sign law or an executive order or any other presidential or executive branch decree that nationalizes the private sector.

Phatscotty wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:what Marxism hinges on was not the topic of discussion, but nice try. Your comment is a side step

It's kind of important to know what you mean by "Marxist" in a thread asking people if someone is a Marxist, no?

Idk, that wasn't my point, it what someone elses, dumbass

Great point, Sym, but PS is a slippery customer. He adheres to the answer "Of course!, because Marxist means whatever I want it to mean," but with the caveat: "my definition of Marxist is subject to change. Later acknowledgement of this change need not be expressed. Standard shipping & handling fees still apply. No COD."

Phatscotty wrote:Is redistribution of the wealth a key tenet of Marxism? Or isn't it?

Of course it is, and there is Obama, ALL about redistributing the wealth. But a smart person would never waste the time trying to make the connection, while it seems they will spend an extreme amount of time arguing otherwise

Here's a better question for you to answer:
Is redistribution of wealth a key tenet of only Marxism, or could there be other political/moral philosophies which adhere to that tenet?

(hint: Marxism is not the only philosophy which adheres to redistribution).


Since "yes, there could be others" is the correct choice, then it is possible that Obama is (1) a Marxist (which he isn't), (2) is some other X-ist which is pro-redistribution, or (3) he is neither (e.g. he's a crony capitalist, which may support redistribution but for completely different tenets/reasons than #1 and #2).

saxitoxin wrote:

kentington wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Is redistribution of the wealth a key tenet of Marxism? Or isn't it?

No.

Redistribution of wealth is a key tenet of Keynesianism.

Nationalization of wealth is a key tenet of Marxism-Leninism.

In redistribution, property flows from A Party to B Party, the State acting as a transfer point on the journey. In nationalization, the State is the terminus of the journey.

Phatscotty wrote:I read this, and I'm thinkin to myself "that's Obama....Obama....Obama again....yup...OBama....."

Capitalism also represents a "materialist understanding of societal development." Both capitalism and communism are materialist approaches to the social condition. Distributism and related ideologies are anti-materialist understandings of social development.

To clarify:
In Marxism, the government takes the money of citizens and keeps it.
In Keynesianism, the government takes the money of citizens and blankets it over other citizens.

Did I get it right?

Maybe BBS will correct me if I am oversimplifying too much for emphasis, but Keynesianism might see redistribution as a means to an end. Wealth is like calcium in your plumbing. It periodically accumulates in large deposits and needs to be flushed out occasionally so the lower classes can keep purchasing and the cycle of industrial production-consumption doesn't stagnate. One might see it as based in pragmatism versus egalitarianism, though politicians might occasionally apply dressage to make it look like a compassionate system (i.e. "giving everyone their fair share", "community safety net").

The redistribution - or, more correctly, abolition - of property in Marxism is an end in itself and the economic ideology can only be understood in the frame of the parallel sociological belief in a wide-ranging, global conspiracy engineered by the "immortal nobility" who have artificially created nation-states to beguile and fool the working class into fighting each other so they won't turn their attention on the government.

The key tenet of Keynesianism is to stimulate aggregate demand in order to increase investment, employment, income, etc. For example, demand for housing decreased significantly in 2008, so (4 years later), the Fed purchases $40 billion per month in mortgage-backed securities to drop the interest rates on mortgages, which in turn stimulates demand for housing. Since people buy more homes, demand for labor (construction, etc.) increases, and investment in construction businesses increases, and blah blah blah, the economy is back on its feet. Capitalism has been saved from itself. Hello, 2012!

Fiscal policy would be (in Keynes' example), digging holes and refilling them, or having a war (which destroys wealth abroad and transfers wealth domestically). It's like breaking the butcher's window to force him to pay someone to fix it. (video)

But if fiscal policy relies on taxation, then couldn't that money be used on other things in the economy by the taxpayers? Yes, but Keynesian is special because they have the multiplier effect. So, if the government spends $1,000,000,000 on tricycles, and if the multiplier effect is 6 (let's say), then GDP becomes $6,000,000,000 + consumption + investment + (exports minus imports).


Okay, so how is any of that relevant?
Keynesianism itself is positive economics that informs policymakers to do X, Y, and Z. It's a tool for fixing the economy, but it is not about redistributing the wealth for moral reasons and so on and so forth.

Like sax said, redistribution of wealth is a means to an end. The Keynesian sees the recession as 'not enough people are buying stuff because they're saving too much! Let's make them buy stuff!' So, they transfer wealth from one group to another, and if you have faith in the multiplier effect, then based on their economic sorcery science, wealth was created, disaster/stagnation was averted, etc.

Marxism is completely different (as sax says).

Obama adheres to Keynesianism whether he knows it or not (in fact, politicians were trying to apply 'Keynesian' fiscal policy before Keynes' manuscript of The General Theory existed). In no way is Obama a Marxist. That requires a huge stretch of the imagination.

yeah okay Saxi tickled me good. Even BBS sneaks a feather tickle in the end. I had a comment here, I had to erase it, so now I have to explore a new perspective and come back in a bit, either with a changed mind, or an even stronger sense, of Obama the Marxist

Phatscotty wrote:yeah okay Saxi tickled me good. Even BBS sneaks a feather tickle in the end. I had a comment here, I had to erase it, so now I have to explore a new perspective and come back in a bit, either with a changed mind, or an even stronger sense, of Obama the Marxist

Give it up you are way out of your depth with Saxi and BBS here,the fact you could even begin to argue Obama is a Marxist shows you have zero comprehension of what Marxism is about.Do you seriously think the power brokers in your country would allow a President to implement a Marxist programme,even if a majority of voters wanted it?

chang50 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:yeah okay Saxi tickled me good. Even BBS sneaks a feather tickle in the end. I had a comment here, I had to erase it, so now I have to explore a new perspective and come back in a bit, either with a changed mind, or an even stronger sense, of Obama the Marxist

Give it up you are way out of your depth with Saxi and BBS here,the fact you could even begin to argue Obama is a Marxist shows you have zero comprehension of what Marxism is about.Do you seriously think the power brokers in your country would allow a President to implement a Marxist programme,even if a majority of voters wanted it?

tell me what Marxism is about? Yes you are right about those guys, but that does not mean Obama basic traits and the basic concepts of Marxism are not running parallel either

Now you'll have to excuse me, as I am overdosing on theraflu and just bumped it off with some nyquil

Phatscotty wrote:

chang50 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:yeah okay Saxi tickled me good. Even BBS sneaks a feather tickle in the end. I had a comment here, I had to erase it, so now I have to explore a new perspective and come back in a bit, either with a changed mind, or an even stronger sense, of Obama the Marxist

Give it up you are way out of your depth with Saxi and BBS here,the fact you could even begin to argue Obama is a Marxist shows you have zero comprehension of what Marxism is about.Do you seriously think the power brokers in your country would allow a President to implement a Marxist programme,even if a majority of voters wanted it?

tell me what Marxism is about? Yes you are right about those guys, but that does not mean Obama basic traits and the basic concepts of Marxism are not running parallel either

Now you'll have to excuse me, as I am overdosing on theraflu and just bumped it off with some nyquil

Anyone can read the Communist Manifesto,in one sitting if you like,and the ideological differences between KM and BO should be obvious.If BO had tried to introduce full on Marxism in the last 4 years he would not be POTUS now.

chang50 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

chang50 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:yeah okay Saxi tickled me good. Even BBS sneaks a feather tickle in the end. I had a comment here, I had to erase it, so now I have to explore a new perspective and come back in a bit, either with a changed mind, or an even stronger sense, of Obama the Marxist

Give it up you are way out of your depth with Saxi and BBS here,the fact you could even begin to argue Obama is a Marxist shows you have zero comprehension of what Marxism is about.Do you seriously think the power brokers in your country would allow a President to implement a Marxist programme,even if a majority of voters wanted it?

tell me what Marxism is about? Yes you are right about those guys, but that does not mean Obama basic traits and the basic concepts of Marxism are not running parallel either

Now you'll have to excuse me, as I am overdosing on theraflu and just bumped it off with some nyquil

Anyone can read the Communist Manifesto,in one sitting if you like,and the ideological differences between KM and BO should be obvious.If BO had tried to introduce full on Marxism in the last 4 years he would not be POTUS now.

sure I would read it, except I have already posted it here and held discussions on it at least 3 separate times. There was actually a consensus that America was well on the road to at least 8 of the 10 points the Manifesto makes

Thanks for the advice tho

Phatscotty wrote:

chang50 wrote: Anyone can read the Communist Manifesto,in one sitting if you like,and the ideological differences between KM and BO should be obvious.If BO had tried to introduce full on Marxism in the last 4 years he would not be POTUS now.

sure I would read it, except I have already posted it here and held discussions on it at least 3 separate times.

I think we figured out that you hadn't read it quite a while ago, dude. Just saying.

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

chang50 wrote: Anyone can read the Communist Manifesto,in one sitting if you like,and the ideological differences between KM and BO should be obvious.If BO had tried to introduce full on Marxism in the last 4 years he would not be POTUS now.

sure I would read it, except I have already posted it here and held discussions on it at least 3 separate times.

I think we figured out that you hadn't read it quite a while ago, dude. Just saying.

Did you catch him non-red handed?

kentington wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

chang50 wrote: Anyone can read the Communist Manifesto,in one sitting if you like,and the ideological differences between KM and BO should be obvious.If BO had tried to introduce full on Marxism in the last 4 years he would not be POTUS now.

sure I would read it, except I have already posted it here and held discussions on it at least 3 separate times.

I think we figured out that you hadn't read it quite a while ago, dude. Just saying.

Did you catch him non-red handed?

Dukasaur wrote:

kentington wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

chang50 wrote: Anyone can read the Communist Manifesto,in one sitting if you like,and the ideological differences between KM and BO should be obvious.If BO had tried to introduce full on Marxism in the last 4 years he would not be POTUS now.

sure I would read it, except I have already posted it here and held discussions on it at least 3 separate times.

I think we figured out that you hadn't read it quite a while ago, dude. Just saying.

Did you catch him non-red handed?

a quick forum search with the word "manifesto" should suffice.

I think Symm just figured out that he was wrong a long time ago, and continues to be...